Cedar Mill based Celeron is an OC king

NulloModo said:
It makes sense that Intel might be wanting to sell off excess 90nm inventory before releasing the 65nm parts as well. Once the 65nm processors hit the streets no one in their right mind would buy one of the 90nm ones unless there are some major major price cuts.
Click to expand...

Ja, very understandable.
 
So the 65nm lauch is only two weeks away and no pricing details have leaked? Weird.
 
SatinSpiral said:
EDIT: Finally a socket 478 successor to the northwood!
Click to expand...

You mean to say the new Celeron D's may come in socket 478 flavors?
 
mzs_biteme said:
Been out there for quite some time... ;)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26870
Click to expand...

Thanks, I missed those articles.
I have been a big AMD fan for very legit technical & price reasons
but I have to admit there is a six month window at the start of 2006
where Intel can kick AMD's butt, at least on paper... even Nvidia
might have something to fear from the new ATI onboard video vs 6150

But when 65nm dual-core opterons appear in May or June, the party will be over.
 
vibe said:
Thanks, I missed those articles.
I have been a big AMD fan for very legit technical & price reasons
but I have to admit there is a six month window at the start of 2006
where Intel can kick AMD's butt, at least on paper... even Nvidia
might have something to fear from the new ATI onboard video vs 6150

But when 65nm dual-core opterons appear in May or June, the party will be over.
Click to expand...

Well , it appears you've a little more than just a few articles...

First of all , the window for Intel isn't H1 2k6 , but H2 2k6 and that is due to Conroe , Merom and Woodcrest.Go see what those are...

Secondly in H1 Intel will fight back with Cedar Mill , Presler and Dempsey , all 65nm Netburst based cpus.My impression is they will at least equal AMD on performance.

Thirdly , 65nm AMD cpus won't appear until late 06 , probably early 07.
 
savantu said:
Well , it appears you've a little more than just a few articles...

First of all , the window for Intel isn't H1 2k6 , but H2 2k6 and that is due to Conroe , Merom and Woodcrest.Go see what those are...

Secondly in H1 Intel will fight back with Cedar Mill , Presler and Dempsey , all 65nm Netburst based cpus.My impression is they will at least equal AMD on performance.

Thirdly , 65nm AMD cpus won't appear until late 06 , probably early 07.
Click to expand...


amen to all of that except for "they will at least equal AMD on performance", which i doubt - maybe for the overclocking folks you are right, though.
 
Yiffy said:
You mean to say the new Celeron D's may come in socket 478 flavors?
Click to expand...

I think he meant socket 775... as the Northwood was already socket 478....
 
wizzackr said:
amen to all of that except for "they will at least equal AMD on performance", which i doubt - maybe for the overclocking folks you are right, though.
Click to expand...

I think Intel is preparing a nice coup to all of us.

From documents presented at the ISSSC on Cedar Mill's ALU is has become apparent they were tweaked and were designed to operate at 9Ghz.

That might sound a lot but in fact it is very slow.A 3.8Ghz Prescott has its ALUs working at 7.6GHz and OC have reached 7.4GHz SuperPI stable => 14.8Ghz ALU operation.

I can think of only one thing : Cedar Mill had very simple goals , just reach 4.5Ghz and die.That sound perfectly reasonable for a 65nm product and its TDP could be under 115w even at that speed. ( 80w for 3.8GHz or smt like that )

Cedar Mill will be introduced at 3.8GHz and IMO , will hit 4.4/4.5Ghz in a very short time ( its lifespan is 6 months anyway ). Since an Intel has to be 1.2Ghz higher to beat an A64 => you need at least a 3Ghz A64 to match it.The current highest A64 runs at 2.4Ghz . 3Ghz might be impossible in decent quantities.

Leaving all this aside , back to my original comment about at leats equal on performance I was refering to the mobile/server side mostly.Dempsey , is a 955XE Presler , with 2 3.46GHz cores , 2MB L2/core and 1066Mhz FSB.
 
Yiffy said:
You mean to say the new Celeron D's may come in socket 478 flavors?
Click to expand...

Doubt it... Even today, Celly 3.2GHz LGA775 cost less then the same speed s478 model. Intel has been on a mission to phase out s478 for quite some time now.
I was taking more from a performance stand point of view, especially when overclocked. Even if that means you have to get a new motherboard, don't worry, Intel announced chipset price cuts as well for 1q2006... ;)

Mike
 
Glad i never blew my wad on a new upgrade as i've come close to doing on more than one occassion. Seems like 65nm will finally be an affordable / noticeable performance boost worth switching to. Let's get cracking on those chipsets now boys.
 
you need at least a 3Ghz A64 to match it.The current highest A64 runs at 2.4Ghz . 3Ghz might be impossible in decent quantities.
Click to expand...
yeah... when the FX-53 was king...

you must not have paid attention to AMD for quite some time, their current flagship runs at 2.8 ghz. 3 would not at all be too hard in the coming months IMO... but theyre moving away from single core. FX-60 is rumored to be dual core 2.8 ghz, 2x1mb cache.

who knows, maybe theyll have two FX parts, the FX-60, and an FX-59 at 3ghz to compete with the highest clocked single core p4... i doubt it though.
 
pigpen said:
Glad i never blew my wad on a new upgrade as i've come close to doing on more than one occassion. Seems like 65nm will finally be an affordable / noticeable performance boost worth switching to. Let's get cracking on those chipsets now boys.
Click to expand...

Same here...I was close to ugprading to the first 775 chips, glad I didn't do that.
 
lithium726 said:
you must not have paid attention to AMD for quite some time, their current flagship runs at 2.8 ghz. 3 would not at all be too hard in the coming months IMO... but theyre moving away from single core. FX-60 is rumored to be dual core 2.8 ghz, 2x1mb cache.
Click to expand...

FX-60 is supposed to be a 2.6Ghz X2, and somewhat slower than FX-57 b/c of its 200Mhz slower performance in single threaded apps.
 
lithium726 said:
yeah... when the FX-53 was king...

you must not have paid attention to AMD for quite some time, their current flagship runs at 2.8 ghz. 3 would not at all be too hard in the coming months IMO... but theyre moving away from single core. FX-60 is rumored to be dual core 2.8 ghz, 2x1mb cache.

who knows, maybe theyll have two FX parts, the FX-60, and an FX-59 at 3ghz to compete with the highest clocked single core p4... i doubt it though.
Click to expand...
Well from what I heard Athlon 64x2 5000+ will be released on the 90nm process as a 2.6GHZ 2x512KB part at about 902US, with the Athlon FX 60 as a Dual Core 2.6GHZ 2x1MB cache for 1031US These are Socket 939 parts apparently.

While it is true the currently flagship runs at 2.8GHZ, at 1031US a pop they don't seem to be high yeild CPU. Neither is the 827US 2.6GHZ part either. Notice also there aren't any 2.6GHZ parts with 512KB of cache either. 2.4GHZ 1MB cache are what AMD seems to be able to achieve in good quantity since the Athlon 64 4000+ is only a "mere" 341US now, less then half of the Athlon FX 55.

Then you have the Socket M2, Athlon FX, Athlon64x2, Athlon 64, Sempron cores that are coming up as well.
 
lithium726 said:
yeah... when the FX-53 was king...

you must not have paid attention to AMD for quite some time, their current flagship runs at 2.8 ghz. 3 would not at all be too hard in the coming months IMO... but theyre moving away from single core. FX-60 is rumored to be dual core 2.8 ghz, 2x1mb cache.

who knows, maybe theyll have two FX parts, the FX-60, and an FX-59 at 3ghz to compete with the highest clocked single core p4... i doubt it though.
Click to expand...

You fail to see the difference between mass produced and flagship or cherry picked parts...

Because , you see if I go to AMD now and ask supply me 10000 FX57s they will say "Sorry , we can't ".

Why ? Because when they test the cpu , they create a so called frequency shmoo that tells them the coresponding TDP by having 2 axes , one being the voltage required and the frequency.

In the end you have something like this ( empirical example ) :

20% < 2Ghz
2Ghz < 70% <2.4Ghz
2.4Ghz < 8% < 2.8Ghz
2 % > 2.8Ghz

*90% of A64s stop at 2.6/2.7Ghz

In the end out of 1 million A64 dies , you could have only 20-30k which are FX57s.

And in the end I was correct , the highest speed A64 is 2.4Ghz , the FX works at higher freq. Think or better read my posts before replying.

PS: Intel could have released a cherry picked Prescott at 4.4Ghz@130w .Guess what , if Dells drops a big order for its XPS line and Intel can't supply I bet Dell wouldn't be very happy.

PS2 : Just noticed coldpower put it very nicely to you.Kudos to him.
 
Hell, if a Celery on 65 nm can match, possibly exceed, a 3.0 Ghz AXP, I can't wait to see what OCed Presslers can do...
 
well, let's get away from the stupid "my company is better than yours" crap an back on topic:

It is nice to see that future Intel chips have a chance to be good overclockers. I would be interested in a nice chip for my next server.
 
savantu said:
You fail to see the difference between mass produced and flagship or cherry picked parts...
Click to expand...
not quite. i just misunderstood you, sorry.

And in the end I was correct , the highest speed A64 is 2.4Ghz , the FX works at higher freq. Think or better read my posts before replying.
Click to expand...
dont be an ass. you claimed the highest clocked a64 was 2.4ghz. the FX family is an extension of the a64 family, and still an a64. my response was perfectly valid. if you want people to understand what you are saying, then say what you mean. how about " the highest clocked mainstream a64 part with good yeilds runs at only 2.4ghz."
 
vibe said:
No way in heck Intel is gonna release a cpu for $120 that has 3.5 stock and 5.0 easy OC. It would instantly kill the resale value of every Intel cpu sitting on every oem's shelf.
Click to expand...

Maybe we'll finally start seeing the FSB lock preventing overclocking that we've all been dreading.
 
acascianelli said:
Maybe we'll finally start seeing the FSB lock preventing overclocking that we've all been dreading.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Multipliers aren't locked to hurt DIYers, it's to stop crooks from selling above BIN speed=P

Originally Posted by vibe
No way in heck Intel is gonna release a cpu for $120 that has 3.5 stock and 5.0 easy OC. It would instantly kill the resale value of every Intel cpu sitting on every oem's shelf.
Click to expand...

Talking about missing the boat, oh brother. That'd have absolutely NOTHING to do with OEMs who don't use overclockable motherboards any phuggin' way. The small 1.6% of Processors sold that makes up the DIY/aftermarket is not enough to cause Intel any sales losses. 1.6 and 2.4C overclocked rings around their competitors and didn't cause Intel any loss at all. In fact, Intel gained market share.

AMD knows Intel will be shipping crap loads of these things to all but flood the market. Even with better performance, there's not a snowball's chance in hell for AMD to keep the prices up.

The craziest thing I've seen lately is folks wishing and hoping for their beloved AMD to finally get a deal with the evil Dell :rolleyes: Why would I say crazy, it's a little more polite than saying dumb? This would all but dry up processors for this market and drive up prices on the remaining few. What's going on right now with Opteron 170 and etc.. would happen to ALL Hammers ;) Dell then looses its sweetheart deal with Intel, so they raise prices, HP and other OEMs see this and jack up prices as well and then we all get screwed. Only AMD stockolders or Employees should love to see that not Fans.

Donnie27
 
Donnie27 said:
The craziest thing I've seen lately is folks wishing and hoping for their beloved AMD to finally get a deal with the evil Dell :rolleyes:......
.....jack up prices as well and then we all get screwed. Only AMD stockolders or Employees should love to see that not Fans.
Click to expand...

Yep

Dell could use all of AMD's capacity COMPLETELY, if they started selling AMD chips exclusively, where AMD would have absolutely nothing to sell besides OEM to Dell.

Even if Dell just used them in the niche gaming XPS market, it would probably be enough to cause all 939 chips to get jacked up in prices.
 
Nasgul said:
Also has there ever been a thread on this forum that has not turned into an "Intel VS. AMD"?
Click to expand...

good question. I guess we should all learn to wait and see. In the end, all of this argument is based on a (few?) ES chips that intel has given out. I think that we will all see how much this Celery will sell for at what date and how well it overclocks at that point :)

Then we can have the AMD vs. Intel bashing...
 
chrisf6969 said:
Yep

Dell could use all of AMD's capacity COMPLETELY, if they started selling AMD chips exclusively, where AMD would have absolutely nothing to sell besides OEM to Dell.

Even if Dell just used them in the niche gaming XPS market, it would probably be enough to cause all 939 chips to get jacked up in prices.
Click to expand...

QFT!

Donnie27
 
The simple fact that Dell holds a practically lifetime contract with intel means that theyre not gonna go with AMD anytime soon, so not to worry. Only in a situation where intel starts to just plain suck, and the dells stop selling. Then they will probably get desperate and go with AMD, IMO.
 
noIinteam said:
You're my new lover. I'm also using firefox but I dunno which version.
Click to expand...

Ick, the site is finally back up, but the pics from the OC link (link 2) are down. Framuts.
 
Emission said:
The simple fact that Dell holds a practically lifetime contract with intel means that theyre not gonna go with AMD anytime soon, so not to worry. Only in a situation where intel starts to just plain suck, and the dells stop selling. Then they will probably get desperate and go with AMD, IMO.
Click to expand...

Things have changed a bit: http://www.overclockers.com/tips00878/

I think it likely we will see Opteron servers from Dell, but not much more, before Intel gives Dell the deal they want, and the Dempsy Xeons come out (they actually compete performance wise with Opterons quite well surpass them even, see Anandtechs recent article on them)

==>Lazn
 
Lazn_Work said:
Things have changed a bit: http://www.overclockers.com/tips00878/

I think it likely we will see Opteron servers from Dell, but not much more, before Intel gives Dell the deal they want, and the Dempsy Xeons come out (they actually compete performance wise with Opterons quite well surpass them even, see Anandtechs recent article on them)

==>Lazn
Click to expand...

True, but you better have to be ready for a fancy electricity bill :D - and I thought "performance per watt" was intels new slogan ;)
 
wizzackr said:
True, but you better have to be ready for a fancy electricity bill :D - and I thought "performance per watt" was intels new slogan ;)
Click to expand...

Only for the procs based off of the Dothan core (Conroe, Merom, et al). As for the rest... Well, what can I say, it is nice to live in an apartment where all utilities are included in the base rent.
 
wizzackr said:
True, but you better have to be ready for a fancy electricity bill :D - and I thought "performance per watt" was intels new slogan ;)
Click to expand...

Anandtech's figure initial is off by 8x , the real difference is around 200$/year as some folks have calculated if you look at the comments.

Hmmm...loaks like they edited the review. :p

The difference of 200$/year is nothing if I can do 10% more work.

Imagine the productivity of such a server , Opteron based , to be 1000$ / month ( altough it is much higher )

With 10% higher performance , the Dempsey one makes 1100 $ / month.
After a year , the Dempesy brings ( 1200-400 = 800$ extra revenue )

I put 400 because , you need 200$ more power and 200$ more cooling.( altough for a small number of servers , 1-2, cooling is negligible )
 
savantu said:
Read this , it's interesting to say atleast....

http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/12/16/intel_65nm_production/
http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/12/16/pentiumd_900/
Click to expand...


Intel will sell the;
3.4 GHz 950 for $637
3.2 GHz 940 for $423
3.0 GHz 930 for $316
2.8 GHz 920 for $241

The Pentium Extreme Edition 955 is expected to cost $999.

The other rumor is that the Cedar Mill with Hyperthreading will sell for just about half those prices down to $149. The top model 3.8GHz might have a selling price close to or similar to $499.

$476 - pentium 4 3.8ghz
$325 - pentium 4 3.6ghz
$269 - pentium 4 3.4ghz prescott
$268 - pentium 4 3.4ghz 800
$189 - pentium 4 3.2ghz prescott
$189 - pentium 4 3.2ghz 800
$174 - pentium 4 3.0ghz prescott
$174 - pentium 4 3.0ghz 800
$129 - pentium 4 2.8ghz prescott
$149 - pentium 4 2.8ghz 800
$142 - pentium 4 2.6ghz 800

$489 - pentium 4 670
$339 - pentium 4 660
$487 - pentium 4 570j
$476 - pentium 4 570
$269 - pentium 4 561
$350 - pentium 4 560j
$232 - pentium 4 550j
$217 - pentium 4 540j
$195 - pentium 4 540
$162 - pentium 4 530j
$160 - pentium 4 530

I listed these minus some of the legacy models. This is menat to show that Cedar Mill should have an easier price point to enter the market. We can sit here and talk about how P4 sucks for games and gets whacked by the X2 until the cows come home. A Cedar Mill 940 3.2GHz that overclocks to 4.5GHz on air shouldn't be so easily overlooked. It's going to cost about $200.

Donnie27
 
Donnie27 said:
Intel will sell the;
3.4 GHz 950 for $637
3.2 GHz 940 for $423
3.0 GHz 930 for $316
2.8 GHz 920 for $241

The Pentium Extreme Edition 955 is expected to cost $999.

The other rumor is that the Cedar Mill with Hyperthreading will sell for just about half those prices down to $149. The top model 3.8GHz might have a selling price close to or similar to $499.

$476 - pentium 4 3.8ghz
$325 - pentium 4 3.6ghz
$269 - pentium 4 3.4ghz prescott
$268 - pentium 4 3.4ghz 800
$189 - pentium 4 3.2ghz prescott
$189 - pentium 4 3.2ghz 800
$174 - pentium 4 3.0ghz prescott
$174 - pentium 4 3.0ghz 800
$129 - pentium 4 2.8ghz prescott
$149 - pentium 4 2.8ghz 800
$142 - pentium 4 2.6ghz 800

$489 - pentium 4 670
$339 - pentium 4 660
$487 - pentium 4 570j
$476 - pentium 4 570
$269 - pentium 4 561
$350 - pentium 4 560j
$232 - pentium 4 550j
$217 - pentium 4 540j
$195 - pentium 4 540
$162 - pentium 4 530j
$160 - pentium 4 530

I listed these minus some of the legacy models. This is menat to show that Cedar Mill should have an easier price point to enter the market. We can sit here and talk about how P4 sucks for games and gets whacked by the X2 until the cows come home. A Cedar Mill 940 3.2GHz that overclocks to 4.5GHz on air shouldn't be so easily overlooked. It's going to cost about $200.

Donnie27
Click to expand...
There shouldn't be any Cedar Mill cores with 800FSB/2.8GHZ, as these cores are meant to replace the Pentium 4 6x0 line of processors.

Intel typically for the most part hasn't sold a 800FSB part below 163US so I am skeptical on this for the moment.
 
coldpower27 said:
There shouldn't be any Cedar Mill cores with 800FSB/2.8GHZ, as these cores are meant to replace the Pentium 4 6x0 line of processors.

Intel typically for the most part hasn't sold a 800FSB part below 163US so I am skeptical on this for the moment.
Click to expand...

Intel hasn't made processors this cheaply before either. Sure, supply and demand can change things, this is very true in this market segment. Hell, look at what's going on with the Opterons 170/175 and to a lesser extent Pentium M?

Donnie27
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top